|
Last night my group was running madly through some custom catacombs under the shrine of Tamoachan with a wave of skeletons animating in their wake when they stumbled headlong into a mummy. One of the first characters to face it failed the Will save and ended up paralyzed with fright for 3 rounds.
Later in the same round, the NPC bard that led them into this mess comes up behind her, passes his Will save when he sees the mummy, and busts out with Inspire Courage.
Is the paralyzed character entitled to a new Will save? If so, is it immediate, or on her next turn? We took our standard 5 minutes to look collectively for a definitive rule in the core books, and then I generously allowed a new instantaneous Will save at +1 - which she failed.
I vowed to post the question to the excellent community on these boards. Was the ruling correct?
Good question. I suspect that, by the book, the answer is "no, the character should not have had a new save," but I'm entirely prepared to be corrected on that one.
In general, though, I'm of the opinion that the DM should err in favour of allowing the extra chance to save. After all, it's not as if you're going to run out of perils to throw at PCs.
|
|
I would have done the same, but I don't know what the official word is on that. You mentioned a custom dungeon under Tomachoan(sp?), I would love to here more about it as I am getting ready to do the same thing and would like to know what someone else thinks is appropriate. Perhaps you could outline what creatures you used and how many in another thread or something? I would be appreciative.
FH
|
|
Absolutely. I couldn't resist doing the work, just for the chance of taking my current group through at least part of the classic.
I'll post something in a separate thread in the STAP area. It's a retro-fit of Mr. Pett's new stuff, stapled onto part of the original module, with a bunch of custom stuff in between. I can't wait for the looks I'm going to get when they get to the talking shrimp and the giant crab!
Is the paralyzed character entitled to a new Will save?
No, she is not. But as a house rule, what I will do is allow the new modifier to affect the result of the original save.
In other words, if the DC of the fear effect is 15, and the character gets a 13 on their save (and is thus paralyzed with fear), and the bard comes along and provides a +2 morale bonus on fear saves, I'll retroactively apply the +2 to the original save (13) for a total of 15...and, encouraged by the bard's inspiring song, the character overcomes her paralyzing fear.
Is the paralyzed character entitled to a new Will save?No, she is not. But as a house rule, what I will do is allow the new modifier to affect the result of the original save.
In other words, if the DC of the fear effect is 15, and the character gets a 13 on their save (and is thus paralyzed with fear), and the bard comes along and provides a +2 morale bonus on fear saves, I'll retroactively apply the +2 to the original save (13) for a total of 15...and, encouraged by the bard's inspiring song, the character overcomes her paralyzing fear.
OOOoo... nice idea. I like it!!
I'd probably just allow a new will save anyway though... also with much the same reasoning... inspired by the song... I like when a player has hope while rolling the die, only to betrayed yet again by a poor roll.
|
I'll point out here a spell from the Spell Compendium that I pointed out in another thread: Resurgence. It's a 1st Level Cleric spell that allows a resave from an ongoing spell, SLA, or supernatural ability.
After seeing it, I think it's nearly a must for players as a scroll, potion, ointment, or even a wand (if you do lots of saves -- badly).
In other words, if the DC of the fear effect is 15, and the character gets a 13 on their save (and is thus paralyzed with fear), and the bard comes along and provides a +2 morale bonus on fear saves, I'll retroactively apply the +2 to the original save (13) for a total of 15...and, encouraged by the bard's inspiring song, the character overcomes her paralyzing fear.
I'd caution against a house rule like this. Seems like a good idea when one first thinks it up but it effectively means that either result of an ongoing save must be recorded or alternatively one has to hash (in other words try desperately to remember)out what the actual roll was now that a new modifier applies to it. If, even just once, you and your players end up in a 10 minute argument (or one party or the other feels like they have been cheated) then this house rule won't have seemed worth it.
Since we are talking about saving throws (and therefore potentially characters lives on the line) its really not something you want to leave hazy and up in the air. Its just this sort of situation were emotions are running high, the players and DM are all caught up in the moment, and its kill or be killed in the dungeon tonight that you want to try and avoid rule ambiguities and various calls on what a roll made 10 minutes ago was.
At best having to debate such calls slows down the game and takes some of the omph out of the excitement. At worst all that emotion gets subverted from the game into a really heated argument about why person X or Y is absolutely certain that the roll was Z.
In general, I tend to agree with both Vegepygmy and Jerry. Mac Donald. They’re both essentially right. That seems a conflict, but let me explain. If the DM allows for a third party induced modifier to apply after the save (whether the RAW says it’s OK or not) isn’t that bad an idea, so long as the application can be done in the same round the original effect is applied and the saving throw was rolled. That would eliminate all the trouble Jerry pointed out. If Joe hasn’t acted yet that round, I would probably judge that he would get no action that round at all; he lost it to the original effect and can’t get it back even with the retroactive bonus making the save successful. It took the balance of the round for the conflicting effects to resolve themselves.
Just my 2 cp…
This is one of those purely circumstantial house rules thingys. I personally allow a new save if existing conditions have changed and if the change in those conditions would conspire to give the PC (or the bad guys unless the PCs are the bad guys) a new save.
The case with the fear effect and the inspire courage, etc. I would probably allow a reroll with the new modifier added on (since the other method prescribed on this thread would force some of my players to hurt their heads by thinking too much).
Rules say no, but I'd allow it because saving someone's life by playing a lute is awesome.
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, all. The only issue I see with Vegepygmy's suggestion is the need to remember what was originally rolled if the bonus is added in later rounds. I could have sworn I saw this addressed directly in one of the Core books, but maybe not. Anyway, I was happy with the way it turned out since I made the character happy (my wife) by letting her save attempt again, and she still failed.
Fake Healer, drop me an email or post your address here and I'll send you a little word doc I put together on Tamoachan. My email address is lpotter5 <at> tampabay <dot> rr <dot> com.